## Facts

- The Kansas Legislature enacted a statute authorizing study and possible consolidation of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas into a “Unified Government.”
- The statute created a non-elected Consolidation Study Commission to evaluate consolidation and, if appropriate, draft a detailed consolidation plan within statutory procedures and purposes.
- The Commission drafted a plan establishing a mayor/chief executive and a 10-member board of commissioners and reallocating city and county powers under a unified structure.
- The plan was submitted to Wyandotte County voters in a countywide election and was approved; the Unified Government then began operating.
- The Wyandotte County district attorney filed an original quo warranto action in the Kansas Supreme Court, challenging the Unified Government’s legal existence and authority.
- The challenge asserted unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, conflicts with constitutional and statutory provisions governing counties and cities, and equal protection and related constitutional violations.

## Issues

1. Whether the consolidation statute unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to a non-elected commission by authorizing it to draft a restructuring plan subject to referendum.
2. Whether consolidation of a city and county government is a legislative power that must be exercised only by the Legislature, or may be implemented through a commission and voter approval under legislative standards.
3. Whether the consolidation statute and approved plan conflicted with the Kansas Constitution or existing statutes governing county and municipal structures.
4. Whether the consolidation scheme violated equal protection or lacked a valid public purpose under rational-basis review.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court denied quo warranto relief and upheld the constitutionality of the consolidation statute and the validity of the Unified Government.
- The court held that consolidation of city and county governments is a legislative power, and the Legislature exercised that power by enacting the statute.
- The commission’s authority was treated as administrative implementation—filling in details under legislative standards and procedures—rather than independent lawmaking.
- Voter approval of the plan was treated as acceptance of a legislatively conferred governmental form, not an exercise of legislative power by the electorate.
- Any conflicts with prior statutes were resolved by harmonization principles, and where necessary, later and more specific consolidation provisions controlled; severability principles supported preserving the valid remainder.
- Equal protection challenges failed under rational-basis review because the scheme was rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.

## Legal Principles

- The Kansas Constitution limits governmental power rather than granting it; statutes are presumed constitutional, and doubts are resolved in favor of validity.
- The Legislature may enact general policy and delegate to an administrative body the power to fill in details if reasonable standards guide the delegation; standards may be implied from statutory purpose and context.
- In complex governmental and administrative matters, less detailed legislative standards may suffice if the statute supplies purpose, procedures, and boundaries.
- Allowing voters to choose a legislatively authorized form of local government is not a delegation of legislative power; it is acceptance of a legislatively created option.
- Statutes should be harmonized where possible; when conflict exists, later enactments and more specific statutes control over older or more general laws.
- If a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, separable provisions may remain effective.
- Under rational-basis review, classifications are upheld if rationally related to a conceivable legitimate governmental purpose; courts do not assess the wisdom or fairness of the policy choice.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court sustained a statutory mechanism allowing a commission to draft, and local voters to approve, a city-county consolidation plan, holding that the Legislature retained the legislative decision to permit consolidation and supplied sufficient standards and procedures to satisfy nondelegation and equal protection requirements.


State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, Kan., 264 Kan. 493, 955 P.2d 1136 (Kan. 1998)